A Response to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic
Apologist”
By
Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
“For professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools.” (Rom. 1:22)
Bob Sungenis refuses to learn
Catholic teaching condemning the civil right to religious liberty
Quickly refuting Bob
Sungenis’ heretical defenses of Vatican II – ten points
Some other thoughts on Mr. Sungenis – A pattern of bad will
and profound spiritual blindness
Sungenis holds that anti-Catholic Protestants are not heretics,
but that we are
On
his website Bob Sungenis recently posted an article which attempted to respond
to our article about him. The language
in Mr. Sungenis’ article reveals that he is obviously desperate and angry. He obviously senses that the truth is getting
out to people and many are waking up.
People can only take so many trips to the Synagogue, only so many pagan
prayer services, only so many praises for Buddhists and Hindus on their pagan
feast days, only so many funerals for Protestant heretics, only so many public
acts of heresy and apostasy, before it hits them that the Vatican II Antipopes
are non-Catholic heretics who hold that the Catholic Faith is meaningless. People are beginning to understand that if
one accepts them as Popes (and therefore as Catholics) there is no point in
even attending church on Sunday. One
could just as well head down to the local Baptist church or even take active
part in the Synagogue’s worship, as the apostate Benedict XVI did on Aug. 19,
2005.
In
his obstinate defense of heresy and attacks on the truth, Bob Sungenis makes a
complete mockery of himself and Catholic dogma.
In his article, he attempts to respond to some of the heresies of
Vatican II that I listed in my article against him. In the process he repeatedly states that we
don’t know what we are talking about and are incompetent, when just the
opposite is true. This is a man who
(see the Heresy of the Week from 7/09/04 relating to “Traditional Issues”) thought
that Anglican Orders are invalid because the Anglicans are excommunicated.
R. Sungenis: “Charles,
you're mixing apples and oranges. Pope
Leo based his decision on the fact that the Anglicans broke off and were thus
excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The absence of the sacramental powers
are based on the excommunication from the Catholic Church, not on the form of the sacrament in which
the Anglicans partake. Paul VI's actions have nothing to do with what
happened to the Anglicans.” (Question 22, July 2004)
This couldn’t be more wrong. The invalidity of Anglican Orders has
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are excommunicated. The Eastern Orthodox are also excommunicated,
yet they have valid priests. Anyone who
possesses even a cursory knowledge of sacramental theology knows that
excommunication has nothing to do with the validity of priestly orders, and
that the form, matter, minister, intention (as well as the signification given
to those things by the surrounding ceremonies) have everything to do with the
validity of priestly orders. And even though Bob Sungenis obviously
doesn’t understand the issue or have a clue what he is talking about, he is
confidently attempting to direct others on the issue. This man is a dangerous heretic.
Bob Sungenis refuses to learn
Catholic teaching condemning the civil right to religious liberty
As is the case with his direction on Anglican
Orders, Bob Sungenis doesn’t understand the Catholic Church’s teaching against
religious liberty. He doesn’t understand
that the Church teaches that heresy and false doctrine kill souls, and, since
the State has an obligation to look after the good of souls, it should suppress
the public profession and propagation of false religions. That is to say, the State must not give all
citizens the civil right to publicly profess, practice and propagate
soul-killing religions.
However, no matter how many times you point the
Church’s teaching out to him, Mr. Sungenis repeatedly responds by saying that the
Church only condemned the idea that non-Catholics have a moral right to religious liberty, not the civil right – which is
completely wrong.
Dimond Brothers [summarizing heresy in
Vatican II]: 8. The State exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents
religious activity (Dignitatis Humanae, 3)
R. Sungenis: No error here. The State
is not in control of religion. The Church is. Therefore, the State has no right to say who has the right to perform religious
acts. The error is from the Dimond brothers, since they don’t
understand the Catholic religion.
Ladies
and gentlemen, this is a mockery of the Catholic religion. We are talking about a serious level of
spiritual blindness here, a man really mired in darkness. Mr. Sungenis says: “the State has no right
to say who has the right to perform religious acts.” This couldn’t be more false.
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas
(# 21-23), June 20, 1888:
“Justice
therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to
adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike,
and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion
is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true,
and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic
States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have
a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things
soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which
no mental plague is greater, and
vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by
public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.”
Here we see Pope Leo XIII (simply reiterating the
consistent teaching of Pope after Pope) teaching that the State not only can, but should curtail and forbid the rights
and privileges of other religions to perform religious acts, exactly the
opposite of what Mr. Sungenis declared.
Such public acts, false opinions and false teachings should be repressed
by public authority (the State), according to the teaching of the Catholic
Church, so that souls are not scandalized or enticed by them.
We can see that the heresy is with Mr. Sungenis,
who doesn’t understand the Catholic religion or have the foggiest idea what the
Church teaches on religious liberty, even though it has been pointed out to him
over and over again. We’re talking about
major spiritual blindness here – trying to get through to him is like beating
your head against a brick wall.
Mr. Sungenis has fallen into his heresy precisely because he is attempting to
defend the blatantly heretical (and indefensible) teaching of Vatican II, which
declared that the State cannot prevent religious activity.
Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3:
“So
the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common
good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its
citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds
the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent
religious activity.”
This is directly opposed to the teaching of the
Catholic Church. It was condemned in the
Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:
“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the
Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of
all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.
This
means that the State should exclude other cults and sects, exactly the opposite
of what Mr. Sungenis said. That is why,
for example, Pope Clement V at the dogmatic Council
of Vienne specifically enjoined on Catholic leaders of States that they
must publicly control (i.e. publicly suppress) the public practice of Islamic
worship. Pope Clement V was
reminding the State of its duty to prohibit the public profession of false
religions.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:
“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith
that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens
(i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes
intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in
their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and
extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and
gives great scandal to the faithful.
These practices cannot be
tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s
approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We
enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the
sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to
be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred
from such boldness.”
“…but I thought that Bob Sungenis said that
the State has no right to say who has the right to perform religious acts, huh?” He’s quite wrong, as we can see – to put it
nicely.
Bob Sungenis rejects the solemn teaching of the
Catholic Church against the civil right to religious liberty. He tenaciously teaches the very heresy
condemned in #77 of the Syllabus of Errors and by many other Popes. He is so blinded, in fact, that he fails to
see that even his own Antipope (Benedict
XVI) fully admits that Vatican II’s teaching (which Sungenis obstinately
defends) contradicts the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors just quoted!
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of
the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might
say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world
religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of
counter syllabus… As a result, the
one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius
X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated
by the French Revolution was, to a large
extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was
still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the
Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of
inner necessity, therefore, the optimism
of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more
intense and more dramatic than the former one."
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is
not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to
deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That
means that there can be no return to the Syllabus,
which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and
a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."
Thus, to prove Mr. Sungenis wrong, you don’t have
to take our word for it. You can just
take the word of Sungenis’ own “Pope.”
Mr. Sungenis not only doesn’t understand the Catholic religion and rejects
it, but he doesn’t even understand what his own Antipope has admitted: Vatican
II’s teaching on religious liberty flatly contradicts the Catholic Church’s
teaching.
Mr. Sungenis on All vs. Many in the
Consecration
In
defense of the New Mass, Mr. Sungenis repeatedly states:
Bob Sungenis, defender of the New Mass
and Vatican II: “No Council or Pope ever taught or defined that the use of
“many” in the consecration formula is tied to, or reflective of, the number,
identity or even the potentiality of those who receive salvation.”
This
is false. At the Council of Florence it
was declared that the effect of the Eucharist is “the union of Christian people
with Christ.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate
Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify
the effect of this sacrament, that
is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.” (Denz. 698)
The “effect of the
sacrament”
(the union of many with Christ, not all) is
what is signified – and must be signified – in the form of the sacrament.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae
Curae, 1896:“All know that the
Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible
grace, must both signify the grace which they
effect and effect the grace which they signify. Although this
signification should be found in the whole essential rite, namely, in
matter and form, yet it pertains
especially to form [the words]…” (Denz. 1963)
As
we can see, the form of a sacrament signifies the grace which it effects. This means that the form of Consecration in
the Sacrament of the Eucharist signifies the grace which it effects: the union
of the Christian faithful with Christ (many, not all). This
proves that the form of Consecration is
tied to “many” (those united with Christ), not all – exactly the opposite
of what Bob Sungenis declared. Thus, the teaching of the Council of Florence
totally disproves the claim of people such as Mr. Sungenis. It shows that “all” in the Consecration
cannot suffice for validity because it gives a false signification. The words of Consecration are tied to and
reflective of many – the
union of the faithful with Christ – not all men.
Will
he be silenced on this point, now that he has been utterly refuted, and it has
been clearly proven that a dogmatic Council does tie the words of Consecration
to many? No, Mr. Sungenis will continue to repeat the
same lies.
Quickly
refuting Bob Sungenis' heretical defenses of Vatican II
I will now respond to Mr. Sungenis’ defenses of some of the other
heresies in Vatican II. I will do this
as briefly as possible, since we’ve proven the points elsewhere in more detail.
1. Christ is united with each man (Gaudium et Spes, 22);
R. Sungenis: Ambiguous, yes, but no error here, because GES is
not saying how each man is united with Christ. He is certainly not
united in the sense that Christ is going to save each man, but He is united in
the sense that He gives each man the grace to repent of his sins. If Christ
were not “united” with man in this way, then there would be no possibility of
anyone repenting and becoming saved. This is just another instance of the
Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see.
Mr. Sungenis says that this passage in Vatican II
is not heretical and that we are “reading into” it what we want to read into
it. Now, let’s be practical and ask the
question: whose interpretation of Gaudium
et Spes holds more weight, Mr. Sungenis’ or John Paul II’s? I think we can all agree that his “Pope’s”
interpretation holds more weight. In his
first encyclical (Redemptor Hominis),
John Paul II makes reference to this document of Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes) no fewer than 12
times. John Paul II even makes reference to this specific passage of Vatican
II (Gaudium et Spes #22) three times. How does John Paul II (in an encyclical
addressed to the whole “Church”) understand the teaching of Gaudium et Spes?
John Paul II, Redemptor
Hominis #13: “We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the
mystery of the Redemption and with
each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”
Basing himself on Gaudium et Spes (which he quotes again and again), John Paul II
teaches that all men are united to Christ “forever” – that means that all are
saved. He even goes on to explicate that
all who are united with Christ (everyone according to Gaudium et Spes 22 and Redemptor
Hominis) have the divine life (the state of grace):
John Paul II,
Redemptor Hominis # 20: “That new life, which involves the bodily
glorification of the crucified Christ, became an efficacious sign of the new
gift granted to humanity, the gift that
is the Holy Spirit, through whom the divine life that the Father has
in himself and gives to his Son is
communicated to all men who are united with Christ.”
This
is also repeated in Redemptor Hominis
#11, where John Paul II says that each man has the grace of divine adoption
(the state of grace):
John Paul II, Redemptor
Hominis #11: “… for the dignity that
each human being has
reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both
the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity, a truth
which – if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such
fundamental importance…”
So,
Mr. Sungenis is again refuted by his own “Pope.” You don’t have to take my word for it that Gaudium et Spes is heretical. Just read Redemptor
Hominis – the interpretation given to the document by Sungenis’ own
Antipope. Let’s move on…
Dimond
Brothers: 2. Protestant religions are a means of salvation (Unitatis
Redintegratio, 3)
R. Sungenis: No error here,
because God can use anything to bring man to salvation. He can use the cosmos (Romans
1:18-20; 10:16-18); he can use the law written on man’s heart (Romans 2:14-15).
He can use anything He wishes. So he can certainly use religions that profess
the name of Christ and regard him as the Savior, even though their conception
of Christ is partially in error. This is just another instance of the Dimond
brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see. They fixate on a
certain definition for the word “means” (that it refers to an absolute
effectiveness) but have no means of proving their contention.
Again,
whose interpretation of this passage holds more weight, the high-ranking
members of the Vatican II sect or Mr. Sungenis’ interpretation? Obviously, the former holds more weight. Well, how does Mr. Sungenis’ hierarchy
understand Vatican II’s teaching on this issue?
The
fact that the Vatican II Antipopes (and the high-ranking members of their
hierarchy) – basing themselves directly on the teaching of Vatican II – hold
that Protestants don’t need to convert for salvation is clear to anyone with a
brain. The Vatican II Antipopes have
repeatedly stated that heretics and schismatics don’t need to convert for
salvation. Just a few weeks ago the
Vatican II sect held an official funeral for the leader of a non-Catholic sect,
Bro. Roger of Taize. Benedict XVI said
that the founder of the Protestant sect was “God’s faithful servant” and went
straight to heaven. “But, no, Vatican II didn’t contradict
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation… or the necessity of every
human creature to be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff…” No, and the sky is purple.
Benedict XVI, Aug. 17, 2005, on Bro. Roger: "Bro. Roger Schutz [founder of a non-Catholic sect] is in the hands of eternal
goodness, of eternal love; he has
arrived at eternal joy…" (L’Osservatore
Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 19; Zenit
News Report, Aug. 17, 2005)
So,
to refute the heretic Mr. Sungenis again, one only needs to quote his own
Antipope against him, who, faithful to the heretical teaching of Vatican II,
holds that Protestant heretics who reject the Catholic Faith go straight to
heaven. Benedict XVI bases this teaching
on Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), of course.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p.
251: “The fact that the burdensome question
of [apostolic] succession does not
detract from the spiritual dignity of Evangelical Christianity, or from the
saving power of the Lord at work within it, has been very nicely elucidated in the Decree on Ecumenism,
especially in number 23, so it seems to me.”
We can see that Benedict
XVI bases his heretical position squarely on the teaching of Vatican II’s
Decree on Ecumenism.
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day,
August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all
Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic
Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not
totally disappeared from the world.
Other the other hand, this
unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to
deny and to reject one’s own faith history.
Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore
Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)
Mr. Sungenis has been
thoroughly refuted by his own Antipope, the principle of unity in his
“Church.” Let’s move on…
Dimond
Brothers: 3. Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion
(Orientalium ecclesiarum, 27)
R. Sungenis: No error here,
because the stipulation, according to Canon Law, is only in cases of extremity
(e.g., death). The Church has the authority to make such exceptions. This is
just another instance of the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what
they want to see.
Mr.
Sungenis is a liar – plain and simple.
I’ve pointed out to him again and again that Vatican II mentions nothing
about “danger of death,” yet he repeatedly uses this already-refuted response.
Vatican
II Document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum
# 27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy
Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who
in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request
of their own accord and are properly disposed.”
Here
is what I wrote after quoting this for him, and then I will give his response:
Bro.
Peter Dimond: “We can see that Mr. Sungenis’ “danger of death” argument is
blown out of the water; Vatican II teaches that Holy Communion may be given to
Eastern Schismatics without any mention of danger of death. But even if Vatican
II had mentioned “danger of death,” it still wouldn’t change the heresy. It is
never lawful to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic, and every Catholic
should know this. Mr. Sungenis is actually a heretic for defending and
asserting that it is allowable to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic in
danger of death. He rejects the following dogma that the sacraments do not
profit non-Catholics unto salvation; and thus, that it is never lawful to
administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic.”
R. Sungenis: Obviously,
the Dimond Bros want to be the judge, jury and executioner. Perhaps when they find the words
“non-Catholic” in the text they can advance an argument. Until then,
this is just another case of them building a straw man so they can knock it
down. Moreover, CCC 1401 says “grave necessity,” which, interpreted by Canon
844.4 is referring to the danger of death. Note also that CCC 1401 says they
recipient must have “evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these
sacrament and possess the required dispositions.” These are clear restrictive
conditions for these cases, and the
Church has the right to make such exceptions. The Dimond Bros don’t
have any authority, although they pretend to have it.
Does
anyone not see the lie that is being perpetrated here? Mr. Sungenis is blatantly contradicting
himself. He argues that Vatican II
doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive Communion. (He even says that “Perhaps when they find
the words “non-Catholic” in the text they can advance an argument,” clearly indicating that, according to
him, Vatican II doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive Communion.) He then changes his position in the same
paragraph and admits that it does allow non-Catholics to receive Communion in
danger of death. What more does one have
to say? This man, ladies and gentlemen,
is simply a raving liar who doesn’t even know what he is saying. He is stating two contradictory things in the
same paragraph: 1) we are wrong and reading into the text by asserting that it
teaches that non-Catholics can receive Communion; and 2) non-Catholics can
receive Communion because the Church can make such exceptions.
Hopefully
all can see that this man is lying.
And
it wouldn’t even matter if Vatican II only mentioned “danger of death,” as
Canon 844.4 of the New Code does (but not Canon 844.3, the New Catechism #1401
or Vatican II’s Decree), since people who reject the Catholic Faith can never
receive Holy Communion lawfully in danger of death. People who reject the Catholic Faith (or any
dogma) are in a position of rejecting God (the author of the dogmas), and
therefore cannot receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist worthily. The Church cannot change the divine law that
heretics cannot receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II
attempted to change.
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862:
“… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has
profaned.”
Dimond
Brothers: 4. Muslims and Catholics together worship the one true God
(Lumen Gentium, 16)
R. Sungenis: Ambiguous,
yes, but no error here, because LG’s context shows that this is only true in
regard to the category of monotheism. LG does not say that the
Muslims can or will be saved by such worship. This is just another instance of
the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see.
He
says that Vatican II’s teaching on Muslims worshipping the same God as
Catholics “is only true in regard to the category of monotheism.” Does this mean that Vatican II’s teaching is
not true in some way? It is an ambiguous
response, inspired by the devil to appease the consciences of his heretical
followers. This kind of response makes
it appear that he is answering the argument, when he isn’t even clearly
answering the question. But since he is
obviously attempting to defend the text of Vatican II, this means that Sungenis
agrees that Muslims and Catholics together worship the one God.
Now,
ladies and gentlemen, if Muslims and Catholics together worship the one God
(because Muslims profess to worship one all-powerful God) that means that anyone who professes to worship one,
all-powerful God worships the one true God together with Catholics. That means that those who
worship Lucifer as the one true and all-powerful God worship the same God as
Catholics. There is no way around that. Perhaps when one considers that fact then one can
see that Vatican II’s teaching is totally heretical and evil.
Dimond
Brothers: 5. The Catholic Church is united with those who don’t accept the
faith or the Papacy (Lumen Gentium, 15)
R. Sungenis: Ambiguous,
yes, but no error here because LG 15 is not using the same definition of “united”
as are the Dimond brothers. This is just another instance of the Dimond
brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see. The Dimond
Brothers will invariably adopt the most restrictive definition of words, since
a more general and accepted definition will not allow they to levy their
accusations against Vatican II.
No,
no error anywhere for Mr. Sungenis. If
you were to sum up the characteristics of the unity of the Catholic Church it
would be that the Church is united with those baptized persons who accept the
Faith in its entirely and accept the Papacy.
To put it another way: those
people with whom the Catholic Church is surely not united are those who don’t
accept the Faith in its entirety and the Papacy. But Vatican II lists those two criteria for
unity and says just the opposite:
Vatican II teaching, Lumen Gentium # 15:
“For several reasons the
Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so
honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety
or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”
This
is exactly the opposite of the teaching of the Church:
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862:
“There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy
witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude,
respect and obedience that all who
want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this
Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791:
“Finally, in one word,
stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with
its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
We can see that it is a dogma that the Church is not
joined, but is alien to, those who don’t accept the Faith in its entirety. Vatican II could hardly deny these dogmas
more clearly.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the
Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the
Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE
CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD
RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER
AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”
And, to prove that this teaching of Vatican II is
heretical, let’s look again at what Sungenis’ own Antipope says:
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 229, Letter to the Schismatic Metropolitan: “I have become still more
clearly aware that the Orthodox
Church and the Catholic Church belong to one another and that none of
the doctrinal questions that appear to divide us is insoluble.”
Benedict XVI, faithful to the heretical teaching of
Vatican II, holds that an entire schismatic sect belongs to the Catholic
Church. I rest my case.
Dimond
Brothers: 6. The College of Bishops is the subject of full and supreme
power over the universal Church (Lumen Gentium, 22)
R. Sungenis: No error
here. In fact, this is a real laugher. It shows the clear incompetence of the
Dimond brothers. Here is the full sentence in LG22:
“Together with their head, the Supreme
Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over
the universal Church, but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement
of the Romans Pontiff. The Lord made Peter alone the rock-foundation and the
holder of the keys of the Church.”
Obviously, the “supreme authority” is conditioned by the fact
that they are under the pope and can only do what he agrees to. This alone ought to convince people that
the Dimond brothers don’t know what they are doing.
A
“real laugher,” eh? Yes, it’s so funny
that we must consider the following: Bob Sungenis’ own website prominently
features an article by Fr. Dominique Boulet on Sedevacantism. Boulet’s article involves when to identify
heresy, who is a heretic, etc. Fr.
Boulet is a member of the Society of St. Pius X. The
SSPX officially lists this passage of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 22, the teaching on Collegiality) as one of the
theological errors/heresies of Vatican II.
So Mr. Sungenis is prominently promoting the analysis of a priest of the
SSPX on his website – a priest who
agrees with us that this passage of Vatican II is erroneous/heretical in his
article. Yes, it’s so funny, isn’t
it? You can find that on page 32 of Most Asked Questions about the Society of
St. Pius X. Mr. Sungenis is
condemned from his own website. If he is
laughing, then he is just laughing at himself, and the priest whose analysis of
heresy he is promoting on his website.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15):
“But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and
definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the
bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to
themselves.”
If the power of the Roman Pontiff (the supreme
power over the Church) is “definitely peculiar to itself,” that means that the
Bishops don’t have it, Bob.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 14), June 29, 1896:
“For He who made Peter
the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’
(Luke 6:13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be
perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power,
and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution
of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or
universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of
the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are
most truly called ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.
The
idea that the College of Bishops possesses supreme authority when in communion
with the supreme authority is a contradiction.
It makes no sense whatsoever, as even the SSPX can see.
Dimond
Brothers: 7. Some people above the age of reason don’t believe in God
(i.e., are atheists) through no fault of their own (Lumen Gentium, 16)
R. Sungenis: LG16 doesn’t
mention an “age of reason” or “atheists.” But it does speak about preaching the
Gospel to all peoples for their salvation. This again shows the incompetence of
the Dimond brothers.
This
is pure sophistry. The fact that Lumen Gentium doesn’t mention the word
“atheists” or the phrase “age of reason” is irrelevant. I was merely summarizing the meaning of the
passage, which I quote in full in my article on Vatican II:
Vatican II Document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
“Nor does divine providence
deny the helps that are necessary for salvation to those who, through no
fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God
yet who strive, not without divine grace, to lead an upright life.”
This
passage of Vatican II says that there are people who “through no fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express
recognition of God…” That means that
there are people who don’t believe in God who are without fault. This is directly heretical and
condemned. St.
Paul teaches that people who don’t believe in God are inexcusable because of
the things that God has made. Vatican I
defined this truth as a dogma.
Romans 1:19-21:
“Because that which is
known of God is manifest in them. For
God hath manifested it unto them. For the
invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and
divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE
INEXCUSABLE.”
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On
Revelation, Can. 1:
“If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord,
cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the
natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1806)
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On God
the Creator, Can. 1:
“If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of
visible and invisible things: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1801)
Vatican
II is talking about those above the age of reason, since it is talking about
those who “strive” to lead an upright life.
Vatican II contradicts the Catholic dogma that God can and must be
acknowledged by the natural light of human reason, and that those who don’t
acknowledge Him sin mortally. In
defending this clear heresy, Bob Sungenis simply displays his easily refuted
sophistry and dishonesty.
Dimond Brothers: 8. The State
exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents religious activity (Dignitatis
Humanae, 3)
R. Sungenis: No error here. The State is not in control of
religion. The Church is. Therefore, the State has no right to say who has the
right to perform religious acts. The error is from the Dimond brothers, since
they don’t understand the Catholic religion.
This
was covered above.
Dimond
Brothers: 9. In Buddhism men reach the highest illumination (Nostra
Aetate, 2)
R. Sungenis: NA2 doesn’t
say that. Perhaps if the Dimond brothers would quote the text for what it says
instead of trying to twist things to their viewpoint, we might be able to have
an intellectual discussion, but they are too far gone down the road of error to
expect any such effort. If one reads the text of NA2 in context, it is merely
stating what the Buddhist religion does, that is, it “It proposes…a state of
perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own
efforts or by the aid of divine help.” NA2 neither condones this “proposal” nor
encourages it. It only says it exists. Time for the Dimond brothers to go back
to the drawing board.
No,
Mr. Sungenis is wrong. Nostra Aetate #2 says the following:
Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism,
according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world
is acknowledged and a way is taught [et
via docetur] whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to
reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or
on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”
This
is blatantly heretical. And, again, you
don’t have to take my word for it that this teaching of Vatican II endorses the
false, pagan religion of Buddhism. Just
read how Paul VI (the man who solemnly promulgated Vatican II) understood its
teaching on Buddhism.
Paul VI, General
Audience to Japanese Buddhists, Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure for us to welcome the members of the Japanese
Buddhists Europe Tour, honored followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council
the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the
religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue
what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’
(Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1973, p.
8.)
Basing
himself on Vatican II
(which he solemnly promulgated), Sungenis’ own “Pope” says that this false and
pagan religion is one of the “riches of Asia.”
I rest my case.
Dimond Brothers: 10. All things
on earth should be related to man as their center and crown (Gaudium et Spes,
12)
R. Sungenis: Perhaps if
they would read things in context instead of taking little snippets out here
and there to support their agenda, we might get some place, but we can’t expect
agitators of the Dimond brothers’ mentality to do such respectable things. GES
is simply making a statement of fact concerning a common denominator believers
and unbelievers have, that is, that man is the center of God’s creation. God
didn’t make animals the center, or the cosmos, or anything else. All was
created for man. THAT is what GES is talking about. GES adds that the proper
conception of man is that he is made “in the image of God,” and quotes many
other Scriptures to this effect.
Sorry
Bob, but all things on earth should not be related to man as their center and
crown. Even the SSPX (whose priest’s
analysis of heresy your promote on your website) lists this as one of the
theological errors/heresies of Vatican II on page 32 of its book Most Asked Questions About the SSPX.
Bob Sungenis: Now, mind you, this was the golden opportunity for
the Dimond brothers to show that Vatican II contains error, and this is the
best they can do?? Here are two men who scour Church documents like people scour
the newspaper to see if they won the lottery, and yet they can’t come up with
one indisputable, bone fide error. All they have are statements taken out of
context (which they are very apt at doing) and they make their hateful and
biased conclusions of those single statements.
But it is obvious to anyone with a semblance of ecclesial
protocol that the Dimond brothers haven’t the slightest clue what they are
doing. They are the Pharisees of the modern age, condemning everyone according
to their misguided ‘letter of the law’ interpretation, and as Jesus said, when
they are done with their converts they make them “two-fold the child of hell”
than they were before (Mt 23:15). They are an utter disgrace.
First,
don’t flatter yourself, Mr. Sungenis.
Our brief summation of some of the heresies in Vatican II at the top of
our article against you was not our “best shot” at exposing the heresies of
Vatican II. We have an entire article
and video about the heresies in Vatican II, which quotes full passages and many
other heresies. The fact that Mr.
Sungenis thinks that our brief summation of a few of the Vatican II heresies in
an article against him was our “best shot” reveals that he is blinded by his
pride. I even mentioned in the article
against him that there is another article for much more information on the
heresies of Vatican II. Is he oblivious
to the fact that we have an entire article covering these and other heresies in
more detail and in full context, even though I mentioned it? Apparently so.
Second, it is obvious to anyone with a semblance of
Catholicism that Mr. Sungenis is a complete heretic who doesn’t have the
slightest clue what he is talking about with regard to the Conciliar apostasy
and the Catholic dogmas which it denies.
I proved above that his own
“Popes” admit that Vatican II teaches what he denies it teaches. I proved that the Council of Florence did
connect the form of consecration with “many,” not all. I proved that the State should forbid false
religions from publicly performing false religious acts, which he rejects. One
could go on, but Mr. Sungenis would deny it all.
For instance, Sungenis would surely deny that Nostra Aetate teaches heresy, even
though we have proven that it uses the exact same verb as the Council of Florence
to teach exactly the opposite. In
defining that all who have a view contrary to faith in Our Lord or the Trinity
are rejected, the original Latin of the Council of Florence uses the word “reprobat,” which means “rejects.” It is from the Latin verb reprobo, which means “I reject” or
“condemn.”
The Latin of the Council of Florence: “Quoscunque ergo adversa et
contraria sentientes damnat, reprobat
et anathematizat et a Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, alienos esse
denuntiat.”
Council of Florence, Bull Cantate
Domino, English: “Therefore it [the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body
of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views [on
the Trinity and Our Lord].”
The Church rejects all
who have a view contrary to faith in Our Lord or the Trinity (e.g. the Jews). In Nostra Aetate #4, in declaring just the
opposite, Vatican II uses the same verb in
Latin!
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate
#4, Original Latin: “…Iudaei tamen neque ut a Deo reprobati neque ut maledicti exhibeantur…”
Nostra Aetate #4 of Vatican II: “…the Jews should not be presented as rejected
or cursed by God...”
Vatican II uses
“reprobati,” which is the past participle passive of reprobo – the very same verb that the Council of Florence used! This means that Vatican II and the Council of
Florence are talking about the exact same thing – they use the exact same verb
– and they teach exactly the opposite! The Council of Florence defines that all
individuals (Jews, etc.) who have a view contrary to faith in Christ or the
Trinity the Church “reprobat”
(rejects). Vatican II tells us that the
Jews should not be considered as having been “reprobati” (as having been rejected). Vatican II couldn’t contradict Catholic dogma
any more precisely. For more on this heresy, see: The Most Specific Heresy in Vatican II.
Some other thoughts on Mr. Sungenis – A pattern of
bad will and profound spiritual blindness
Since
Mr. Sungenis’ article contains repeated statements that we hate the Church,
let’s give a little background on Bob Sungenis.
In making these remarks I must point out in advance that we fully
acknowledge, of course, that people can change and convert. The point is that this man has not yet
converted and is still a bad willed heretic.
Bob
Sungenis is a man who was raised in the Catholic Church before Vatican II, but
left her to embrace rabid anti-Catholic Protestantism. After leaving the true Church in which he was
raised, he denounced the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon and a false
sect of the devil. Therefore, from the beginning Mr. Sungenis showed bad
will, dishonesty and tremendous spiritual blindness in leaving the Catholic
Church for the man-made religion of Protestantism. Then, just as now, he was totally blinded by
his pride, and was convinced of his path that he was a follower of Christ when,
in fact, he was Christ’s enemy.
We
were raised in a family with no religion; we were exposed to most major
religions. We were not persuaded by the
man-made Protestant religions and converted to the Catholic Faith in our youth. We could see that there is only one Christian
Church which is the Catholic Church. We
then gave up everything and entered religious life despite the profound
opposition of almost our entire family.
This is usually not relevant to the issues, but since Mr. Sungenis
repeatedly states that we are enemies of the Church I feel that it is important
to note that we have given our lives to the Church and embraced it as true from
a young age. We were not convinced by
false or man-made religions, as was Mr. Sungenis, who acted as the Church’s
enemy for decades.
After
leaving the Church and becoming Her enemy, Mr. Sungenis “converted” to the
post-Vatican II sect. Notice, he “converted”
in 1992 to the post-Vatican II sect, which had already fully embraced
Protestantism and held that Protestants go to heaven. Mr. Sungenis found a home in the
Protestant-accepting Vatican II sect, and with its teaching that heretics and
schismatics go to heaven. At the time of
his “conversion,” Mr. Sungenis believed that Protestants who reject the Catholic
Church can go to heaven, just as he does now.
Would
he have “reverted” if he were entering the true Church, which condemns
Protestantism as evil heresy and Protestants as heretics? No. He
converted to the Protestant-accepting post-conciliar sect because he was still
a Protestant; he still believed that Protestants were true Christians (as we
will see). He accepted Protestantism as
salvific then, just as he defends that heretical teaching of Vatican II now.
It’s
just like the guests on “The Journey Home” television show on EWTN, a show
featuring “converts” to the Vatican II sect.
In most of the shows that I’ve seen, the “converts” state at the end of
the talk how “great” or “holy” or “saintly” their former sect and its leaders
are. Many of them make it explicit that
they believe that their non-Catholic family members will be with them in
heaven, thus indicating that the Catholic Faith is not necessary for
salvation. They haven’t converted to the
true Faith; they don’t yet believe that Protestant sects are false sects which
lead to damnation, as the Catholic Church teaches. They don’t hold that the Catholic Faith is
necessary for salvation. They don’t
possess the supernatural virtue of the Catholic Faith which leads them to the
firm conviction that Protestant ministers are false teachers, not of the
Lord. They are completely false
converts, just like Mr. Sungenis was – who is precisely of the same mold.
Sungenis holds that anti-Catholic Protestants are not heretics,
but that we are
That
is why from the early days of his “conversion” the false convert Mr. Sungenis
was spreading pernicious heresies which showed that he was completely devoid of
the supernatural Catholic Faith. And
while this heretic proved that he was still a Protestant in belief even after
his “conversion” (as we will see below), he says that we are enemies of the
Church like Luther and Calvin.
R. Sungenis: “The Dimond Brothers (Peter and
Michael Dimond) have made a name for themselves in condemning the present
Catholic Magisterium and all the popes since 1958 as “Anti-popes.”…Like Luther and Calvin, they claim to be
following the Fathers and Tradition.”
No,
Mr. Sungenis, we aren’t the ones defending as Catholics men who hold that
Protestant heretics go straight to heaven (e.g., Benedict XVI). We aren’t the ones defending as Catholics
those who have entered agreements on Justification with the Protestants. We aren’t the ones who profess communion with
those who praise Luther (John Paul II and Benedict XVI). You, like Luther and Calvin, are the defender
of Protestant heretics.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Principles of Catholic Theology (1982),
p. 263: “That which in Luther makes all
else bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor, that
which orders it to a Christian center – precisely that is being ignored.”
Some
time after his “conversion,” in a debate with the viciously anti-Catholic
Protestant heretic Robert Zins and his partner, Bob Sungenis was asked by
Robert Zins and his partner whether they (the anti-Catholic Protestants) were
heretics. They were begging him to call
them heretics, and they even quoted the Council of Trent to prove that they are
(according to Trent) anathematized heretics on the road to hell for spurning
its teaching.
If Mr. Sungenis had any
whiff of the Catholic Faith whatsoever, he would have denounced these
Protestant heretics and correctly informed them (in true charity) that they are
anathematized for obstinately rejecting Catholic dogma and even attacking it. If anyone on earth is a heretic, it is Robert
Zins who has made a career of attacking Catholic dogma and its holiest
teachings. But no, still a Protestant,
Mr. Sungenis refused to even call these arch-heretics “heretics,” but rather
told them that they had “invincible ignorance” – scandalizing the entire
audience in addition to making a mockery of Catholic dogma.
This proves that the false
“convert” Bob Sungenis was still a Protestant years after his so-called
“conversion” to the Catholic Faith, for he held that you could be a viciously
anti-Catholic Protestant and still be a true Christian. But, as bad as that is, it gets even worse
because Mr. Sungenis still holds that these viciously anti-Catholic
Protestants are not heretics. Below
is a quote from Mr. Sungenis’ recent article, in which he is responding to my
summation of his failure to call Zins a heretic. We can see that Sungenis reveals that he
still holds the same position!
Robert Sungenis’ recent article,
“Robert Sungenis vs. the Dimond Brothers”: “Dimond Brothers: Secondly, by what
authority does Mr. Sungenis say that Protestant ministers are heretics? Perhaps
he doesn’t at all; he may actually hold that Protestant Ministers, such as Jack
Van Impe and Pat Robertson, are not actual heretics and that they are inside
the true Church? In fact, a few years ago I heard Mr. Sungenis debate Robert
Zins, a Protestant blasphemer who was attacking the Catholic Church and who has
attacked it for years. In the debate, Mr. Sungenis refused to call the
Protestant (Robert Zins) a heretic! – even though Mr. Zins proved to Mr.
Sungenis from the Council of Trent that, according to Trent’s teaching, he
[Zins] is a heretic!
“R. Sungenis: That’s because, unlike
the Dimond Bros who think they have taken the place of the Catholic
Magisterium, I reserve to the Catholic
Church the prerogative of calling someone a formal heretic. As far as the
Church is concerned, I’m just another peon with an opinion. “
This
proves that he still holds that Robert Zins (an anti-Catholic heretic) could be
considered to be not a heretic.
And this man dares to call himself a “Catholic Apologist.” Does one really need to say more to expose
Bob Sungenis for the non-Catholic heretic that he is?
He
is still a Protestant who doesn’t have a whiff of the Catholic Faith. He has taken his favorite heresy, that one
cannot identify and denounce a manifest heretic (such as John Paul II or
Benedict XVI or Robert Zins, etc.), to its logical conclusion, by holding that
viciously anti-Catholic Protestant heretics cannot be denounced definitively as
formal heretics. This rejects Catholic
teaching, the whole Tradition of the Church, and Catholic common sense.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same,
as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS
OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN
THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE
MAGISTERIUM.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC
BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND
CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”
And
while Mr. Sungenis refuses to call Robert Zins (a man who attacks the Catholic
Faith) a heretic, he doesn’t hesitate to state that we are heretics!
R. Sungenis: “stop listening to the Dimond Brothers. They are heretics on
their way to hell.” (July 2004)
R. Sungenis: “As
for the Dimond brothers, they are heretics. Stay away from them.” (July
2004)
Oh,
I see…. anti-Catholic Protestant heretics who deny, attack and attempt to
refute the Council of Trent, the Papacy, the defined dogmas on Our Lady, etc.
aren’t heretics. Men who say that we
shouldn’t convert Protestants and that that Jews don’t need to believe in
Christ (Benedict XVI) aren’t heretics, but Sedevacantists are supposedly
heretics. You hypocrite, how will you
flee from the judgment of hell!
Matthew 23:31,33: “Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves…You serpents,
generations of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?”
“R. Sungenis: That’s because, unlike
the Dimond Bros who think they have taken the place of the Catholic Magisterium, I reserve to the Catholic Church the
prerogative of calling someone a formal heretic. As far as the Church is
concerned, I’m just another peon with an opinion. “
When
it comes to Sedevacantists, he suddenly gets the authority to declare people heretics. But when it comes to Christ-deniers and
anti-Catholic Protestants who attack Trent, the Papacy and Our Lady, he doesn’t
have the authority. Mr. Sungenis, you
are an utter disgrace, an abominable hypocrite, and a blinded and faithless
non-Catholic heretic on the road to damnation.
This
background on his theological positions was necessary for people so that they
can see that Mr. Sungenis is without any doubt a false teacher of the devil –
and he has been a false teacher of the devil since he left the Catholic Church
to embrace Protestantism. The devil has found for him a good niche
to attempt to confuse traditionally-minded Catholics, and lead them back to the
apostate sect. After proving that he
still holds that Robert Zins is not a heretic, one shouldn’t even have to say
more. Any Catholic should immediately recognize that Bob Sungenis is still a
Protestant who doesn’t have a whiff of the supernatural Catholic Faith.
To
prove that Sungenis is a Protestant devoid of the supernatural Catholic Faith,
look at what he says about Canonizations:
Bob Sungenis, August, 2005, Question 53- John Paul
II a saint??
“…Sungenis, What are your opinions of John Paul II
being placed on the fast track of becoming a saint? From what I've read, the
Pope will probably beatify John Paul II during the World Youth events in
Germany. Tien
R. Sungenis: I don't think John Paul II should be
up for sainthood, and if he is
declared a saint, it just shows that making saints is not an infallible
exercise, and, of course, it was never defined by the Church as an
infallible event. We covered this issue in one of our earlier Q&A
sessions.”
This
is completely Protestant. Since he
doesn’t like or agree with the Canonization, that proves that it is not
infallible? No, this is prime example of
the Protestant heresy of private interpretation against the solemn judgment of
a Pope. If Benedict XVI is the true Pope
(as he says), then Mr. Sungenis is bound under pain of mortal sin and heresy to
accept his “Canonizations.” But since he
has no fidelity even to the solemn teaching of his false “Popes,” he, like a
good Protestant, simply rejects what he doesn’t like. This just proves again that he has no
Faith in – nor fidelity or submission to – the true understanding of the
Papacy. If a Catholic can reject a
Canonization from the man he deems the Pope, then one can reject every single
Saint in Church history.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection,
1759, p. 23: “To suppose that the
Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St.
Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy,
according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff,
according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy
Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”